I haven’t been blogging a lot lately for a lot of reasons (a combination of extreme busyness with billable activities, and slight burnout on things to say), but here’s today’s.

I’m still recovering feeling in my chin and nose from a major dose of lidocaine, and various items being inserted into and removed from my jaw. My gums are tender, full of sutures, and I suspect that I’ll be more swollen and painful tomorrow. I have reasonably good medication to deal with it (fortunately, my oral surgeon wasn’t put off by threats from drug warriors at the DEA into undermedicating me for pain).

End result, hopefully, in a few months–infection-free gums and teeth, and good replacements.

I saw the movie “Kate and Leopold” the other night. It’s entertaining, but I can’t imagine making a conscious and deliberate choice to go and live in a world of over a century ago, in which modern dentistry was unavailable…

OK, Lott has “apologized,” but he still hasn’t explained.

And note, as I pointed out in my previous post, that the Dems (at least the semi-intelligent ones, which doesn’t include Jesse Jackson) are not calling for his ouster.

One Democrat, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, defended Lott on Monday, saying he had spoken with Lott and had accepted Lott’s explanation that he hadn’t meant for the remarks to be interpreted as they were.

“There are a lot of times when he and I go to the microphone and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I’m sure this was one of those cases for him, as well,” Daschle said.

They live in fear of the day that the Senate Republicans elect a leader who isn’t a pushover, and an idiot.

[Update at 9 PM PST]

OK, I’ve been reading what the folks at Free Republic have been saying on this issue. Frankly, much of it is foolish.

There seems to be a visceral reaction among many Republicans and conservatives (many of whom populate that particular forum) of “my Senator, right or wrong.” Or “we can’t give the Dems the satisfaction of taking down a political leader.”

This is exactly the kind of emotional, brain-dead thinking (during impeachment) that destroyed the Democrats in 2000 and 2002. “He might be a corrupt bastard, but he’s our bastard, and we’re not going to let those uptight bible thumpers remove our President, no matter what he did.”

Had the Democrats stood up for principle in 1999, as the Republicans did in 1974, and asked their President to step down, it’s very likely that Albert Gore (shudder, and perish the thought) would be President today, having run as an incumbent in a campaign representing a morally-purged Democratic Party.

Instead, they stuck by their guy, in the face of overwhelming evidence of his corruption and guilt, because the stock market was up, and his polls were (temporarily) good. They did so not for tactical, or strategic reasons, but only because they followed the ancient principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” They defended him reflexively, idiotically, in a knee-jerk fashion, simply because he was being attacked by “right wingers,” and “bible thumpers,” and “Republicans.” Not because his behavior was defensible.

Now, because of their insouciance toward his venality, they’re out in the political wilderness.

The Republicans face the same danger, if they don’t take care of business. To defend Lott simply because he is being attacked by Democrats is foolish, and counterproductive.

Lott has been a liability for years. This is a golden opportunity for Republicans to both get rid of someone who has been undermining them by playing a hapless stooge to his Democrat counterparts in the Senate, but also to demonstrate that they aren’t the racist monsters (and apologists for same) that they’ve been painted by Democratic attack dogs and their allies in the press.

Where is the supposedly politically-astute Karl Rove?

Jim Bennett writes (regarding Turkey) that friends don’t let friends join the EU.

Given the upcoming turmoil and upheaval (badly needed) in the Middle East, it’s not too early to start thinking about desirable post-war scenarios. A useful one to think about, in terms of liberalizing both the governments and economies of the region, might be MEFTA–the Middle East Free Trade Association. We could help form it now, and invite others in as they become eligible, by dint of democratizing and rationalizing their economic policies. It might eventually be integrated into NAFTA, but just having such a stand-alone organization would be a vast improvement for the region. The charter members could be Israel, Turkey and perhaps Jordan.

Something like this would be a much better bet for the Turks, rather than harnessing themselves to European policies with the effect, if not the intent, of holding economies back. It would allow them to forge their own destiny, and help stabilize the dangerous region around them, rather than allying with a Europe that doesn’t really want them, while their borders remain bloody.

Once formed, a post-mullah Iran would also be a good candidate, and offering this as a carrot could hasten the day that such an entity appears. Afghanistan could be brought in as well, as a means of continuing to stabilize the latter, as well as Armenia and some of the other appropriate ex-Soviet ‘stans.

And obviously, we would want to restructure a post-Saddam Iraq, or whatever new nations emerge from the end of the Ba’athists, to perhaps be a key anchor for such an organization.

It would have another benefit. Ultimately, the only solution to the Palestinian problem is to create neighboring states in which they can go and prosper–states that will no longer encourage them in their hopes of destroying Israel, and instead welcome them in building new, freer societies. Creating democratic Arab states with growing economies can provide a demand “pull” to complement the inevitable Israeli push, as the Israelis come to realize that they simply cannot share a land with many of these people.

I wonder if anyone at Foggy Bottom is thinking along these lines?

Given the news in other places, no one’s been paying much attention to Venezuela lately. Just in case anyone was still wondering if Chavez is really a dictator, and a Castro wannabe, he’s about to declare martial law, after murdering a few demonstrators.

It’s going to get worse, and maybe a lot worse, there before it gets better.

Everyone (well, at least many in the blogosphere) is demanding that Trent Lott step down after his stupid remarks about how much better off we’d be if Strom and the Dixiecrats had won in 1948.

I agree that he should step down, but not for the reason that many are putting forth–that he’s apparently an unreconstructed racist and segregationist. I don’t think that he is. I suspect that what he meant was that because Thurmond later changed his stripes, the turmoil of the sixties might have been avoided, though of course this makes no sense at all, since no one knows what Thurmond would have done later had he actually won in 1948 and had his segregationist world-view confirmed and rewarded.

There’s nothing new here. I believe that he should resign for the same reason that I’ve thought that he should resign ever since he took the post six years ago–he’s a politically tone-deaf idiot, a gutless wonder who presided over and enabled the sham trial in impeachment, and let the Democrats roll him time and time again. If he stays in power, he’s quite likely to continue to do and say stupid things that will lose him the Senate, or at least more likely than most of his probable replacements.

The reason for him to resign is that that’s exactly what Tom Daschle & Co. don’t want him to do (whatever feigned outrage they may express over the latest incident). He’s been far too useful an idiot for them.

Sixty one years ago today, the Japanese imperial Navy (fundamentalist Shinto extremists) attacked Pearl Harbor.

Thirty years ago today, Apollo XVII, the last Apollo mission, was launched to the Moon.

You think that we’re not at war with a culture? The Islamic equivalent of Toys’R’Us has Osama action figures flying off the shelves.

And now that it’s the Christmas buying season again, you may want to consider this, a hot seller last year.

The Ninth Circuit, apparently looking for another 9-0 overruling by the Supremes to add to their coup stick, has issued an opinion that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms.

Unsurprisingly, it cites Bellesiles. The judges apparently don’t get out much.

Equally unsurprisingly, Eugene Volokh has some excellent commentary, as does Clayton Cramer.

[Update at noon PST]

It just occurs to me that this is probably just the case the Supremes may be looking for to finally resolve the issue, even if the Administration wants to continue to try to have it both ways (i.e., stating that it’s their policy, but not actually changing any laws that would logically follow from such a policy shift).

We now have the Fifth and Ninth Circuits in diametrical opposition to each other, with this case and Emerson. It’s exactly the kind of case that the Supremes are necessary to resolve.

The gun grabbers shouldn’t be cheering this ruling, particularly when one understands just on what shaky historical and Constitutional grounds it rests. It may prove to be their Waterloo.

And Bellesiles may be the best thing to ever have happened to supporters of the right to bear arms, which is why Gary Wills, among others, is so angry at him now.

John McLucas has died.

I liked this little palindromic bit from the bio:

During World War II, he served in the Navy in the Pacific. Afterward he would describe his wartime work as involving “a project so secret that it had to be spelled backwards.” When pressed on what exactly this was, he confided that it was something called “radar.”

I didn’t know him well, but he was one of the good guys, and was very supportive of space enterprise. My condolences to his friends and family.

Next week, it will be thirty years since the last Apollo mission to the Moon.

Many, perhaps most of the people who made that feat happen are either retired or no longer with us. Those remaining are the institutional memory of the early days of the space program. NASA is trying to preserve it, and more recent experience, by interviewing and capturing the knowledge of their veterans, while it’s still available to do so.

Back in the fifties and sixties, we were building new launch systems and high-performance aircraft every year or two–it was a veritable assembly line of aerospace innovation, with a wide variety of projects for people to work on, and develop cutting-edge (at the time) technology. However, we’ve slowed down greatly since then, and put into place cumbersome government procurement procedures, with set program phases tied inextricably to unavoidable budget cycles, to the point that major interesting programs are now few and far between, and ponderously slow.

This has two results. First, within her career, your average engineer gets to work on many fewer programs these days, resulting in correspondingly less, and less diverse experience. Second, it’s a much less fascinating career with which to draw in some of the best and brightest of our technologists. Nanotechnology, biomedical breakthroughs, computer graphics–all of these presently offer much greater challenges and excitement than aerospace engineering in general and NASA in particular.

Sadly, much of this knowledge was never written down, or if it was, it has been tossed out, like old cancelled checks and tax records. When I was working at Rockwell International a dozen years ago, President Bush (the first) announced a desire to go back to the Moon and Mars. I wanted to resurrect the computer codes that had calculated the lunar trajectories during Apollo. I discovered that the last set of cardboard punchcards (which were the only way it had been stored) containing them had been disposed of a few weeks before.

Now, all of the hard-won knowledge that accumulated during the heady days of the X-15, and Apollo, and Ranger and Mariner, and dozens of other programs of which most today have never even heard, is dissipating into retirement or the grave. Worse, many of the things that these people know are less science than art, and not easily condensed into a textbook.

How to design a stable rocket propellant injector? How to shape a wing that will get a plane from the speed of an everyday airliner, through the turbulent hurricane fury of the transonic region, into a supersonic realm in which it outraces the sound of its own engines?

Some of these people, if in good health, remain available for consulting, but once in the grave, their secrets are lost to us forever, and in some ways, it sets us back years, and even decades.

NASA is to be commended for this program to capture what’s about to be lost forever. Anything we can do to hold on to the fragile knowledge base that took us to the Moon, or even, with all their flaws, built the Space Shuttle and other more modern programs, will reduce costs in the future should we once again revive the spirit necessary to take great steps on the high frontier.

Even from program white elephants (like the International Space Station) and total failures (like X-33) there are lessons to be learned, though sadly, unlike the lessons of the early space age, those lessons are lessons of management caution, and more about what things not to do, than how to do them. This just goes to show that no program is utterly worthless–it can always serve as a bad example for a case study.

And along those lines, as the article points out, this ongoing exodus of industry and agency personnel represents a double edged sword, and reveals a silver lining to the retirement cloud.

As mentioned in the Washington Post article linked above, it’s healthy for the industry to turn over its personnel, and bring in new blood. For at least some old dogs, the adage about new tricks is certainly true.

Yes, we’re losing a lot of valuable knowledge and experience. On the other hand, we’re also losing a lot of false certainties and misunderstood experience that’s been holding us back for years, particularly among management. There’s an old saying that “it’s not so much what folks don’t know that hurts them, as much as the things they know for darned sure that are wrong.”

They know that we cannot have lower launch costs without new “technology.”

They know that it takes billions of dollars to develop a new “low-cost” launch system.

They know that, unlike airplanes, launch vehicles require devices to blow up the vehicle if the slightest thing goes wrong.

They know that, unlike airplanes, putting pilots in space transports increases both development and operational costs by a large factor.

They know that no one in their right mind would pay money for a ride into space.

They know that only governments can fund space activities.

In other words, many in the industry remain certain of things that are absolutely wrong. Particularly (and sadly) many of them are in positions of authority, and with power over budgets, and program go-aheads, and young engineers’ lives and careers.

Which is why, based on their sage and invalid advice, the new NASA administrator can also make mistaken pronouncements, to the detriment of progress.

I mourn the knowledge being lost. We must do everything possible to not only capture and preserve it, but honor those who achieved so much decades ago, and march forward on the shoulders of those giants.

At the same time, I rejoice at the thought that many of those who remain mired in the myths of the past will no longer hold us back.

We must hold on to the good, and build on it, while remembering that the Cold War is long over, and build a new space age on its unlamented ashes.

The torch has been passed to a new generation.